NZ Walking Access Bill - It WILL affect motorcycling [Archive]

View Full Version : NZ Walking Access Bill - It WILL affect motorcycling

Zukin

6th May 2008, 23:40

Interesting reading

While there are good points, there are many ideas I dont like personally :mad:
The major one is I enjoy the many kms of paper roads (which you are legally entitled to ride on) I get to ride over to interesting far out places, why would they want to stop all users from using these??

I would like to see concerned motorcyclists put pen to paper and send in a submission. Please make it your own
Sending in someone’s work and just signing it to ‘Make up the numbers’ That is an old trick that now no longer has any value or credibility.
Now I for one are not normally passionate (or angry) about these sorts of things, but this seriously has the potential of ruining what I love the most about NZ and the interesting places that I get to ride to.
:clap:

Copied from an email I received earlier (4wd National Body getting in behind it, but the same things will apply to ALL users of these legal roads)

The Rural Affairs Minister, Damien O'Connor has introduced a Walking Access Bill into Parliament. This Bill is supposedly to recognise the recommendations of the Acland Panel on Walking Access. There are aspects that could be useful to recreation generally but there are also big potential problems. Check www.nzfwda.org.nz and click on Walking Access Bill 08

The New Zealand Four Wheel Drive Association (NZFWDA) are of the view that there are two vital concerns to our recreation;

a) The need to remove any provision to establish walkways over public
lands & the public already have huge rights over public lands, and of course unformed legal roads (paper roads) are public lands & we could see roads become walkways very easily & subsequently of course closed under other legislation.

b) Any stoppage of any road should be subject to provisions found in
the tenth schedule of the Local Government Act 1974

Four wheeling needs your help please, to get this Walking Access Bill changed.

Talk with your Member of Parliament and ask for their help to change the two points above, or use this link to send an email to all or any MPs with your comments. Please be courteous and acknowledge that the Bill has some good aspects for walkers.

http://www.betterdemocracy.co.nz/email_mps.php

This part is important too¦write a submission to the Select Committee and post 2 copies by Wednesday, 21 May, 2008, to -

Committee Secretariat
Local Government and Environment
Parliament House
Wellington

Your submission/ comments can simply repeat the points above and must include your full name and address.

Thank you for getting involved.

Zukin

6th May 2008, 23:48

The Bill can be found here

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0208-1/latest/DLM1244016.html

Zukin

6th May 2008, 23:51

The more I read and look into the more I dont like it :mad:

From NZ Fish and Game Council

I am currently filing an OIA request for any reports, Cabinet decisions etc, that relate to the decision to include the section in the Bill enabling walkways to be created over public land. I suspect there isn’t much I will get back which will indicate it is more a political move than one built on reasonable cause.

Personally I think it is a sinister (and naive) attempt to get rid on unformed legal roads (ULRs) in favour of the adjoining owner. So we all need to dump on this provision in the Bill big-time – especially any of the organisations and individuals who have an interest in recreational access with guns, dogs and vehicles (bike and motorized). The agricultural and local government sectors would love to get rid of ULRs.

We all need to make sure the hard won key points of ‘high principle’, from an angler / hunter point of view, that I got into chapter 6 of “Acland 2” (the panel I was on) are not fudged aside in the Bill and during the upcoming parliamentary debates and select committee process.

Already the pro-farmer attitude is emerging in the Explanatory Note to the Bill where it is stated on page 2 that…. “The Bill does not interfere with private property rights”…. yet the Bill currently seems silent on the explicitly recorded points in chapter 6 of the Acland 2 report on pages 16 and 17 that….”the public has rights to public resources”, and a bit further on….“Wildlife, freshwater fisheries and natural water are natural resources and do not usually attach to the land title” (and hence are deemed to be public resources forming part of the public estate) – where the reference to ‘do not usually’ was only inserted because of the uncertain legal possibility around ‘water ownership’ in relation to mining rights in places like Central Otago. So the proposition was generally accepted in Acland 2 that land ownership does not extend to the ‘wildlife, freshwater fisheries and natural water’ associated with the land upon which it exists – however it does not seem to have come through in the Bill – I wonder why?

What this all means is that the current Bill therefore effectively enshrines “exclusive capture”, where a land occupier can effectively grant themselves exclusive ownership of a public natural resource, such as wildlife, or freshwater fisheries, or natural water in situ, simply by (selectively) denying public access, for which they can then probably charge an access fee (which amounts to the sale of fishing or hunting rights in respect of those particular sports fish and game bird species managed by Fish and Game Councils). This needs to be strongly exposed by all of us in the up-coming parliamentary and select committee process.

One point in our possible favour however is that the Purpose statement of the actual Bill, at clause 3(a), states that….”The purpose of this Act is – (a) to provide the New Zealand public with safe, unimpeded walking access to the outdoors (such as around the coast and lakes, along rivers, and to public resources) so that the public can enjoy the outdoors….etc”. (my emphasis). However while “public resources” are not currently legally defined in section 4 of the Bill, we should be able to make a strong case for them to be, along the lines of the interpretation taken in Acland 2, noted above – ie. that ‘public resources’ means ‘wildlife, freshwater fisheries and natural water’. To this the marine recreational fishing NGOs need to add ‘marine recreational fisheries’ and big game NGOs need to add ‘deer, chamois, tahr and pigs’, and all the hunting NGOs (including Fish & Game) need to add ‘small game’ (such as hares, rabbits and possibly possums) – given that all three are what most hunters cut their teeth on en-route to becoming life-long recreational hunters.

We all therefore need to read this Bill very carefully, and contrast it against the Acland 2 report, including my ‘Alternative View’ minority report at chapter 21.

It will become an extremely important piece of legislation for the future of outdoor recreation in NZ, as it cuts to the fundamental heart of what the early English and European settlers sought to establish in NZ regarding the public ownership of and accessibility to natural resources.

WRT

7th May 2008, 10:37

tri boy

7th May 2008, 10:50

I will take the time to read through this bill, and comment on it.
Thanks for the "heads up".

MSTRS

7th May 2008, 11:27

Good stuff, Scott. My contribution...
I am most concerned to hear of moves by Damien O'Connor to legislate use of walking access on paper roads to the detriment of all other potential users. Is this to be another example of Govt pandering to one section of the public by over-riding the 'rights' of many others?
Whilst it is acknowledged that there can be safety issues surrounding walkers, those people using vehicles of many types, to also access such areas, are on the whole responsible and abhor the 'hoon factor' to the same degree as walkers do. Problem areas (such as certain beaches) soon come to the attention of local authorities and are policed until the problems are resolved. Do we really need legislation banning the legitimate recreational use of vehicles? Unimpeded access of public lands is one of the things this country was founded on, and it is my opinion that there are adequate areas set aside for walking-only already.
And recd this...
Thank you for your email regarding the Walking Access Bill.
National has supported the Bill to Select Committee, but has made no
commitment beyond that stage. We will certainly have to clear up the poor
way the Bill has been drafted.
National supports making publicly owned land more accessible, which is a
major concept of the Bill.
National also recognises sanctity of private property rights and therefore
supports the Bill's proposal that where access over privately owned land is
deemed desirable, it will only be achieved through a negotiated process with
the landowner.
We are committed to working with all interested parties at the Select
Committee stage to ensure that this Bill best reflects the wishes of the
public, yet respects private property rights.

Judy Cunningham
Electorate Secretary
Nick Smith MP Nelson

SDU

7th May 2008, 14:33

Thanks for the heads up Zurkin. Be good to get this bill stopped. bloody govt. regional councils have been sneakedly been closing paper roads except for walkers or MTB's around this area for awhile now, it is getting worse.

Zukin

7th May 2008, 15:39

Thanks for bringing this up Zukin! As a keen off roader and fisherman, I'll type something up to send in as soon as I get a free mo.

Just one note - your link to email MP's on the better democracy site has an extra full stop in it, can you fix that so others will find the site ok?

No problems, I thought that there were many others in the same boat as me :yes:

I have fixed the link, thanks for the heads up :yes:

WelshWizard

7th May 2008, 18:40

twotyred

9th May 2008, 17:41

It will just go the same way as the the bill they introed into the UK , now only farm trafffic and foot sloggers can use a lot of the old roads, only way to stop them is to get rid of the government with voteing, time we got rid of this lot of dictotorial control freeks any way.

some organisation needs to put together the numbers of pissed off voters envolved, much like the old bumper sticker that read something like: " 300,000 NZ'ers hunt,fish and vote " although the numbers affected here are probably much larger.

Renegade

16th May 2008, 20:19

what is it with this govt,they are driving me nuts!!!!!!!!:angry2:

WelshWizard

16th May 2008, 20:28

what is it with this govt,they are driving me nuts!!!!!!!!:angry2:

Ever thought its their personal mission to piss you off, and any other Motorcyclelist they can.

tri boy

17th June 2008, 19:40

Just been checking out NZ 4WD website, (Scott probably knows a bit more than me).
Peter Vahry traveled to the select committee meeting on the 10th June to submit against the walking access bill, and apparently the Bill received quite scathing replies from various interested parties, (fishing, hunting, 4WD clubs etc).
Hopefully this bill will be seen for what it is, (a rushed ramble with little consultation, presented by a "farmer friendly" MP).
Pressure will need to be maintained to protect kiwi's natural right to access THEIR mountains/streams/coastlines. MHO

Dave Lobster

18th June 2008, 06:59

Does this country have a requirement that if 'so many' people tell their MP to vote a certain way, he has to? (whether his party likes it or not)

Grahameeboy

18th June 2008, 07:17

Grahameeboy

18th June 2008, 07:18

Does this country have a requirement that if 'so many' people tell their MP to vote a certain way, he has to? (whether his party likes it or not)

Oh you mean like when we complain that we know how to be parents so bagg the Anti-Smacking Law because it is an infringment of our rights so we don't need to be told what to do.....

cooneyr

18th June 2008, 08:21

Umm...sorry but don't Farmers and Land Owners have rights too. Why should they automatically let the public traipes across their land in 4WD's.

UK is a bit different because they have have historical rights of ways plus off course, unlike NZ there is an abundance of common land with footpath and bridleway access for the public so for eg mountain bikers can use bridleways unlike in NZ where in the main you only have access to private land that is made available for mountain biking, like Woodhill etc.....like there is private land where you can 4WD, Qyad bike etc...so you may have to pay...the Farmer pays for his land...you go to a restaurant and pay for the meal so why not pay to off road

In UK this works reasonably well and if necessary you ask permission from the farmer / land owner.

The land is for walking on and you cannot have walkers and vehicles side by side...bad enough on public highways!!

Sorry, I know I will get bagged but I don't see what the problem is.

I'm not completely up with the play on this new bill but I happen to agree with you if private land is involved. Get permission and all will be sweet or else don't go - the mode of transport doesn't matter.

What annoys me though is when there is a paper road (public land) and farmers have put up Private Property signs in an attempt to keep people out. The farmer has no right to do this and has no more right to the land than the next person. Paper roads are often the most interesting and exciting routes to go adventure riding on.

I just wish that there was an easier way of finding out where a paper road really exists i.e. councils had a list or maps that showed where they are. This would make it easier for everybody involved and help prevent potentially nasty confrontations. If it arises where people abuse the road then go through a formal road stopping process and give everybody a chance to have input and have a fair discussion about ways of managing access.

Cheers R

Hitcher

18th June 2008, 08:56

Potential submitters should take time to read the provisions of this proposed legislation before blindly signing up to Fish & Game or four-wheel-driving activist propaganda.

The Bill's intent is about clarifying the current legal muddle around such things as "paper roads", "the Queen's chain" and a whole bunch of other gobbledegook. The Bill's intent is to provide certainty of access. In many cases currently there is nothing but confusion.

Land owners are asking for certainty, as are various recreational users, such as fishermen and four-wheel-drivers. Particularly important is a need to clarify situations where access to public land (such as recreational reserves or National Parks) can only be afforded across privately owned land.

"Paper roads" are one area where there is a high degree of confusion as to what rights apply to them. Access to Stoney Batter on Waiheke Island is a perennial high profile issue where a land owner has a clear view on this matter which is at distinct variance with what recreational users believe is appropriate.

"The Queen's chain", as it currently stands, is another piece of arcane nonsense. A spectacular example of this is the Mararoa River in Southland where the river is in some cases over 1km away from the Queen's chain that was established over 100 years ago.

And also remember that postcard or "me too" submissions carry no more weight that the original submission they attempt to mirror. A submissions process is about quality of thinking, not weight of numbers. It's not a beauty contest.

Nordy

18th June 2008, 09:04

submission to the Select Committee and post 2 copies by Wednesday, 21 May, 2008

to late now anyways.

tri boy

18th June 2008, 09:17

My main concern with this Bill is that it still has a few issues regarding the land owners ability to close access to the public of Crown owned streams that pass through their properties.
I am regularly in contact with land owners, with regards to "paper road" access, and to fair, most are honest about the tracks conditions and the ability to use them. (I do arm myself with Land infomation 1:50000 scale maps so they can see the tracks I'm talking about).
Some are just plan arrogant though, (try accessing the west coast from Raglan to Pt Waikato). Illegal gates have popped up with the increase of dairy activity.

England is a classic, (sad) case, where land owners charge ridiculous fees for course fisherman to cast a line in what was Crown land.(5000 pound for a weekends fishing is not unheard of).

I'm happy to see things get sorted properly, but NZ citizens should be allowed to politely cross land, open/close gates and get to the fishing spots their grandfathers accessed. Otherwise we become a serf to rich lords. Do we really want that in our country?

Hitcher

18th June 2008, 10:26

Without wanting to sound like an apologist for the Bloody Labour Gummint, you'll find that what you're wanting is what the Bill proposes.

Grahameeboy

18th June 2008, 10:39

I'm not completely up with the play on this new bill but I happen to agree with you if private land is involved. Get permission and all will be sweet or else don't go - the mode of transport doesn't matter.

What annoys me though is when there is a paper road (public land) and farmers have put up Private Property signs in an attempt to keep people out. The farmer has no right to do this and has no more right to the land than the next person. Paper roads are often the most interesting and exciting routes to go adventure riding on.

I just wish that there was an easier way of finding out where a paper road really exists i.e. councils had a list or maps that showed where they are. This would make it easier for everybody involved and help prevent potentially nasty confrontations. If it arises where people abuse the road then go through a formal road stopping process and give everybody a chance to have input and have a fair discussion about ways of managing access.

Cheers R

Agree with you there is Farmer is doing that...probs if the paper road leads to his private land I guess in which case whilst the farmer has no legal rights, I can kinda understand his actions if it stops people trying to use his land...

MSTRS

18th June 2008, 11:21

The name of the bill suggests that there is a move to restrict vehicular access, whilst allowing (increased?) foot traffic. No matter what happens re this bill, only some will be happy with the outcome. It is yet another example of the pollies attempting to legislate commonsense, and since so few have it anymore, failure is a given.

tri boy

18th June 2008, 11:25

Thing is, the "paper road" doesn't belong to the farmer. It is designated crown land that is on his property. (can't remember the exact measurement off the road, that is the start of his boundary).
The Stony Batter case was a farce. The land owner just dragged his feet with regards to fencing off his boundary alongside the road that led to the site.
(not saying he was abad land owner, he planted alot of native trees on his property), but he did take an "elitist" approach to the issue.
We do not need that Lord/Peasant approach here. Public domain is just that.
The sooner this issue of recording legal access, and making the roads common knowledge via a website the better. Sadly, I feel the Govt will keep on fuddling with the issue. Therefore landowners will increase using illegal fences and gates to ban genuine public wishes to access our landmarks.
Much more important than smacking a babies bum, or not.

clint640

18th June 2008, 13:31

The name of the bill suggests that there is a move to restrict vehicular access, whilst allowing (increased?) foot traffic.

Well kind of, but not quite. The issue is that we already have free walking (& motorcycling, mountainbiking & 4wdriving) access down any paper road. The bill aims to improve public access by replacing these rights with walking access only, & even that may be subject to restrictions, so I'm failing to see the improvement.

I really fail to see the extreme danger of having vehicles & walkers side by side on the kinds of tracks we're talking about here - that's what's legal right now, like on all the rest of NZ's backroads, & there's hardly an epidemic of trampers being run over by speeding 4x4's & motorbikes.

I'm with Triboy & CooneyR on this one, we have to be vigilant on this, there are enough people illegally blocking off paper roads now, often to try & restrict access to public land that they want to have to themselves, without giving the bastards a legal means to do it.

Cheers
Clint

cooneyr

18th June 2008, 13:37

......It is yet another example of the pollies attempting to legislate commonsense, and since so few have it anymore......

hear ye hear ye hear ye - this man speakith the truth - if ever I bloody heard it!

Thing is, the "paper road" doesn't belong to the farmer. It is designated crown land that is on his property. (can't remember the exact measurement off the road, that is the start of his boundary).
The Stony Batter case was a farce. The land owner just dragged his feet with regards to fencing off his boundary alongside the road that led to the site.
(not saying he was abad land owner, he planted alot of native trees on his property), but he did take an "elitist" approach to the issue.
We do not need that Lord/Peasant approach here. Public domain is just that.
The sooner this issue of recording legal access, and making the roads common knowledge via a website the better. Sadly, I feel the Govt will keep on fuddling with the issue. Therefore landowners will increase using illegal fences and gates to ban genuine public wishes to access our landmarks.
Much more important than smacking a babies bum, or not.

Most road reserves are a chain wide which is near as damn it to 20m. I too wish that there was a conclusive list of roads (be they paper, gravel or seal) so that we could weed out the "interesting" ones. This would be of huge benefit to all - landowners and "users". I'm slowly putting a few on my website - just now got permission to put another one in south canty up :woohoo: It's a real doosie too.

Cheers R

Hitcher

18th June 2008, 14:28

there are enough people illegally blocking off paper roads now, often to try & restrict access to public land that they want to have to themselves, without giving the bastards a legal means to do it.

There's the point. Many "paper roads" have no legal status whatsoever. They may appear on a map, but the land owner on whose property they are drawn, has clear legal title to them. People wanting access have their eyes light up when they spy such things, but land owners believe that people are trespassing when others attempt to use them. Farmers don't want dickhead townies having unfettered access to various parts of their properties, such as lambing paddocks, at certain times of the year, leaving gates open, parading unrestrained dogs and children, etc.

cooneyr

18th June 2008, 15:30

There's the point. Many "paper roads" have no legal status whatsoever. They may appear on a map, but the land owner on whose property they are drawn, has clear legal title to them. People wanting access have their eyes light up when they spy such things, but land owners believe that people are trespassing when others attempt to use them. Farmers don't want dickhead townies having unfettered access to various parts of their properties, such as lambing paddocks, at certain times of the year, leaving gates open, parading unrestrained dogs and children, etc.

Good point to note - dont assume that every road on Google Maps/Earth is a legal road. It would appear that there is a lot of history in NZ i.e. road reserves were created but are now revoked but are still on the maps/in the database.

Still, I wish that LINZ would tidy up their database cause there is a lot of temptation out there. There are Summit Road from Gebbies Pass east (http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=3640370316111492003,-43.690894,172.640422&saddr=Summit+Rd+%40-43.690894,+172.640422&daddr=-43.702195,172.687826&mra=mi&mrsp=1,0&sz=14&sll=-43.695618,172.662678&sspn=0.04344,0.075188&ie=UTF8&z=14), Kaituna Pass Road (http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=7091229117963133783,-43.731694,172.693229&saddr=Kaituna+Pass+Rd+%40-43.731694,+172.693229&daddr=-43.702071,172.696581&mra=mi&mrsp=1,0&sz=14&sll=-43.715411,172.707138&sspn=0.043426,0.075188&ie=UTF8&z=14), Mt Herbert Road Peak (http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=6752017112194446984,-43.634366,172.733217&saddr=Mt+Herbert+Peak+Rd+%40-43.634366,+172.733217&daddr=-43.699899,172.76207&mra=mi&mrsp=1,0&sz=13&sll=-43.694563,172.761211&sspn=0.086882,0.150375&ie=UTF8&z=13) and Old Port Levey Road (http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=6606657160458376589,-43.643888,172.754215&saddr=Old+Port+Levy+Rd+%40-43.643888,+172.754215&daddr=-43.659117,172.81065&mra=mi&mrsp=1,0&sz=14&sll=-43.649988,172.782497&sspn=0.043473,0.075188&ie=UTF8&z=14) just to name a few.

Anybody know the Official way of confirming the status of the "roads". I guess it involves talking to LINZ?

Cheers R

swbarnett

18th June 2008, 15:45

, but NZ citizens should be allowed to politely cross land, open/close gates and get to the fishing spots their grandfathers accessed.
Sounds like customary rights to me. Maybe we should push for a tribunal and claim compensation.

(p/t)

Hitcher

18th June 2008, 15:58

Anybody know the Official way of confirming the status of the "roads". I guess it involves talking to LINZ?

Not that simple. LINZ, Transit and local authorities all maintain various forms of incomplete references.

The best option is generally to ask permission to the land owner concerned. Most are reasonable folk and are usually positively disposed to reasonable requests.

tri boy

18th June 2008, 16:07

cooneyr

18th June 2008, 16:12

Not that simple. LINZ, Transit and local authorities all maintain various forms of incomplete references.

The best option is generally to ask permission to the land owner concerned. Most are reasonable folk and are usually positively disposed to reasonable requests.

Agreed about the asking thing - even if there is a legal paper road I'd be asking, but I figure I've got more chance if I at least know I'm "legally" entitled to go there. I'm actually quite keen to ride the whole of the summit road as Merv has talked about doing back in the "old days". Bit un-PC (hate that sentiment) for todays world to head up there on a bike but if I'm allowed I'm allowed (obviously do it with respect for the land and others though).

Cheers R

MSTRS

18th June 2008, 18:11

The name of the bill suggests that there is a move to restrict vehicular access, whilst allowing (increased?) foot traffic. ...Well kind of, but not quite. The issue is that we already have free walking (& motorcycling, mountainbiking & 4wdriving) access down any paper road. The bill aims to improve public access by replacing these rights with walking access only, & even that may be subject to restrictions, so I'm failing to see the improvement.

Just what I said...

If it restricts honest kiwi's from traveling legally then I will weep in dispair.

If you are not prepared to walk, then get your hanky ready...

clint640

19th June 2008, 10:45

There's the point. Many "paper roads" have no legal status whatsoever. They may appear on a map, but the land owner on whose property they are drawn, has clear legal title to them.

The 'paper roads' that we're referring to here are legally surveyed road reserves, not any old road marked on a map, which you're dead right about, one should never assume access is a right as many roads shown on maps aren't legal access at all.

However given that most maps are drawn up using council/LINZ data quite a few of the 'paper roads' of your definition are actually legal roads too.

Cheers
Clint

cooneyr

19th June 2008, 11:45

The 'paper roads' that we're referring to here are legally surveyed road reserves, not any old road marked on a map, which you're dead right about, one should never assume access is a right as many roads shown on maps aren't legal access at all.

However given that most maps are drawn up using council/LINZ data quite a few of the 'paper roads' of your definition are actually legal roads too.

Cheers
Clint

Yer but how do we know for sure. Look at the examples I provided in this post (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1612617&postcount=28). They are on Google Maps/Earth (which you would assume uses LINZ data) and are also on the Ecan (Canty Regional Council) public view GIS website. This strongly implies that they are still public roads where as there are a number of lots (properties) that look very very much like they use to be roads but are no longer roads on the afore mentioned websites.

I'm guessing the best way to actually find out is to check who "owns" the land (by this I mean the District or City Council that "owns" it on our behalf) and then you would need to check with the Council its status i.e. road reserve, or some other type of reserve.

An example of a "road" being another type of reserve is the Bridal Path between the Summit Road and Lyttelton. It is a "road" on both Google Maps and the Ecan Site but according to the Chch council (http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Parks/Publications/mp_bridlepath_1.asp) it is a historic reserve.

This all makes it very difficult for us plebes :2guns: and cant make life any easier for landowners when somebody gets a whif of a paper road and goes foir a looksee. My personal feeling though is that at the moment because of the difficulty of finding out the status of the "paper roads" the landowners have the upper hand which is unfair seeing as they are getting free use of the land anyway (its not theirs so they dont pay any rates on it).

Cheers R